Arlington Heights village trustees acted on the tighter restrictions Monday night even though those restrictions have been called inadequate in complying with federal law.

``We were so distraught and devastated by the vote,`` said John Mihalek, a commissioner of Citizens with Disabilities.

The Village Board has decided to pursue an ordinance that would keep the present limit of four unrelated individuals in a home.

Arlington Heights has been revising its zoning code to comply with 1988 changes in the federal Fair Housing Act, which makes it illegal to

discriminate against people with disabilities.

Last summer, the Illinois Planning Council on Developmental Disabilities said the village`s zoning code-which it essentially decided to retain this week-did not adequately comply with the federal law.

``Requiring a special-use permit for five to eight people would perhaps be illegal,`` said Kerry Flynn, legislative and policy analyst for the council. ``You could be treating that group of people differently than the rest of the population.``

Home-rule communities were required to submit to the agency an outline of steps they planned to take to treat all individuals equally in terms of housing opportunities.

The plan Arlington Heights submitted included ``very much the same``

concepts as the one approved by the Village Board Monday, said Charles Witherington-Perkins, the village`s director of planning and community development.

Although it is retaining the same general limitations on group housing, the village is not in violation of any state laws, Perkins said. The state planning council`s ruling was only a guideline and in no way enforceable, according to the state council officials.

``Our plan is adequate,`` said Perkins. ``We disagree with the (state)

interpretation.``

The revised Arlington Heights ordinance does expand the definition of a family, Perkins said. Now, instead of requiring the owner of a home to be one of four unrelated individuals living there, an agency can act as an owner, too.

Arlington Heights was one of 18 home-rule communities whose housing plans were judged inadequate in terms of the federal Fair Housing Act amendment of 1988, said the disabilities council`s Flynn.

The four new trustees on the board voted to let stand the village ordinance, while the four incumbent trustees voted for a more liberal ordinance that had been supported by the Plan Commission. Mayor William Maki broke the tie.

The village will vote on the revised ordinance, keeping most of its restrictions, later this month.

A more restrictive Arlington Heights ordinance would be along the same lines as an ordinance adopted by the village of Schaumburg recently in which a special-use permit would be required for homes where more than three unrelated persons would live.

Advocates for the disabled particularly criticized the village`s decision to require that groups of five to eight unrelated individuals who want to share a home must obtain a special-use permit, which requires a public hearing.

Mihalek and others supported the Plan Commission recommendation that the village allow up to eight unrelated disabled and mentally ill people to live together in a house without such a permit.

``You can`t apply a different rule to people with disabilities than to families,`` said Mihalek.

Guerin Fischer, the president of Clearbrook Center for the Handicapped, which maintains 12 residential homes for the mentally disabled in the northwest suburbs, said he was ``disappointed`` in the vote.

``There`s still an undercurrent of fear in society-people don`t want them in my backyard,`` said Fischer.

But the limit will make it hard for disabled people to afford a house, he said. ``Handicapped who need to collectively put their money together . . . are not going to make it with just four people.``

Fair housing advocates, such as the Alliance for the Mentally Ill and the Citizens with Disabilities Commission, were unsure what steps they would take in the wake of the village`s decision. But sooner or later, the village will be challenged as to the legality of the housing ordinance, said Fischer.

``Someday, some advocate group will challenge the dispute in federal court,`` Fischer said. ``It`s a matter of time.``